Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Pilot test on a developed GFRP bridge deck

a,*
Ki-Tae Park , Sang-Hyo Kim b, Young-Ho Lee a, Yoon-Koog Hwang a

a
Structure Research Department, KICT, 2311, Daehwa-Dong, Ilsan-Gu, Goyang, Gyonggi-Do, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, 134 Sinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul 120-749, South Korea

Available online 30 November 2004

Abstract

In this paper, an optimum design technique is developed which can be applied to bridge decks based on FRP materials with more
complex objective functions and constraints than those of existing materials. The proposed optimum design technique is applied to
determine optimum geometry for bridge decks and properties of the FRP material by carrying out three-dimensional numerical
modeling. In addition, FRP deck modules have been produced using the pultrusion method after considering the proposed optimum
cross-section shape and property of the material, and several tests have been performed to validate the performance of the developed
GFRP deck.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Glass fibers; Mechanical testing; Debonding

1. Introduction increased, a great deal of structural analysis is required

The apparent advantages of FRP (fiber reinforced
plastics) composites over the conventional structural
materials may be attributed to their superior strength
and stiffness. In particular, the excellent durability of
the FRPs has made it a favorable material for structures
in severe service conditions. Hence, the material proper-
ties of FRP structural components should be included in
the designs to meet its specific requirements and service
conditions.
Over the last two decades, numerous studies have
been conducted for structural optimizations, and most
of them are related to the practical applications for the
tractable engineering problems. To date, many standard
structural optimization algorithms are available, but a
greater number of design variables and constraints
are required in the structural optimization process. If
the number of design variables and constraints are
* for optimization of the GFRP deck, has been developed.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 910 0134; fax: +82 31 910
0121.
E-mail address: ktpark@kict.re.kr (K.-T. Park).
in the optimization process.
Theoretical and practical applications of the struc-
tural optimization are well summarized by Cohn and
Dinovitzer [1]. Burnside et al. [2] proposed an optimiza-
tion process for the FRP bridge decks having the cellu-
lar- and stiffened-box geometries. An optimal structural
shape of the FRP beams, having a wide-flange section,
has been presented by Qiao [3]. In his studies, the stack-
ing sequence, volume ratios, number of ply, and the ply
angle of FRPs are considered as the major design varia-
bles. Based on the CLT (classical lamination theory),
Mantell and Heiness [4] have also proposed an optimiza-
tion procedure for a GFRP (glass fiber reinforced plas-
tics) composite box beam. Recently, an optimum design
of a precast FRP system was proposed by Salem [5] and
Choi et al. [6].
This paper presents the optimum design and analysis
on the GFRP deck with a hollow cross-section. An opti-
mum design algorithm, associated with an improved GA
(genetic algorithm) based on index technique suitable
Therefore, the optimum cross-section and physical
properties of the GFRP deck module with a hollow

0263-8223/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.08.011
 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 49

cross-section have been proposed. In addition, the per- Table 1

formance of the GFRP deck module has been verified Geometric design variables of GFRP deck
by the means of the pultrusion method on test samples. Description Symbol Range
Web interval B 80–230 mm
Height H 100–250 mm
2. Formulation of optimization Thickness of upper flange t1 8–23 mm
Thickness of lower flange t2 6–21 mm
Thickness of web t3 6–21 mm
The thickness of upper/lower flange (t1, t2), thickness Slope angle of web a 60–130
of web (t3), slope angle of web (a1
a3), height of deck
(H), and interval between webs (B) are assumed to con-
trol the geometric section shape of GFRP deck as shown
in Fig. 1. In this case, it is assumed that the interval be-
tween the webs equals the distance from the half posi- Table 2
tion of web height to the center. Moreover, additional Properties of FRP material
optimum processes have been conducted to determine Material Description Value
the number of ply, stacking sequence, ply angle and fiber Glass fiber Tensile strength, fglass (MPa) 3500
volume ratio to simultaneously satisfy optimum geome- Elastic modulus, Eglass (MPa) 73,500
try and physical properties. Shear modulus, Gglass (MPa) 29,400
In the case of FRP material pattern in the flange, uni- PoissonÕs ratio, mglass 0.25
Density (gr/cc) 2.54
directional roving and random mats or continuous
strand mats are applied to resist tension and compres- Vinylester Tensile strength, fglass (MPa) 77
Elastic modulus, Eglass (MPa) 3910
sion. Also, in cases where the web needs to resist shear
Shear modulus, Gglass (MPa) 1428
deformation in the decks, ±45 woven mats are added PoissonÕs ratio, mglass 0.366
to material components of flange. Tables 1–3 provide Density (gr/cc) 1.15
geometric design variables of the cross-section, proper-
ties of FRP material, and the boundary of physical
properties, respectively. An objective function is selected
to minimize the volume of a FRP structural system in 3. Optimization algorithm
Eq. (1).
X Practical optimum design problems may be charac-
Minimize ðW i  ti Þ  Li ð1Þ
terized by the mixed continuous discrete variables, and
i¼1
by the discontinuous and non-convex design spaces. If
where W, t, and L are the width, thickness and length of standard nonlinear programming techniques are used
components within the section, i.e., flanges and webs. for these types of problems, they will be inefficient and
The subscript i represents the index for each component. computationally expensive. In most cases, these tech-
The constraints are classified into two parts: side con- niques may give a relative optimum value that is close
straint and behavior constraint. The minimum thickness to the starting point [12]. On the other hand, the optimi-
has been specified by design standards as the side con- zation procedure based on the GAs may efficiently ex-
straint. The behavior constraint refers to the limitation ploit the historical information to speculate on new
of stress, deflection, and buckling strength. Behavior search points with the improved performance. There-
and serviceability constraints of FRP deck are based fore, a GA-based optimization procedure was developed
on a number of previous studies (i.e., [7–11]), and con- and coded as a computer program. A concise flow of the
straint due to manufacturing technology of pultrusion overall optimization procedure is illustrated by a flow-
method has been also included. chart as demonstrated in Fig. 2. As shown in the Figure,
three-dimensional structural computations are carried
out by a commercial finite element analysis package,
t1 ABAQUS [13]. The S4R element, which is suitable for
analysis of the FRP structure, is used in the numerical
modeling.
t3 To treat the optimization problem more efficiently,
H t3
the index technique is employed in this study. The modi-
fied GA-based solution algorithm with the index tech-
α1 α2 α3 t2
nique is shown in Fig. 3. Generally, the GA can be
applied to an optimization problem with the non-con-
B B
straints that are considered as the penalty parameters
Fig. 1. Thin-walled cellular section. and maximum of fitness function.
50 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

Table 3
Boundary of physical properties range
Description Symbol Range
Flange Web
Elastic modulus (MPa) E1 25,098 (40% to 35%) 20,374 (40% to 35%)
E2 15,236 (40% to 35%) 10,460 (40% to 35%)
PoissonÕs ratio m12 0.30 (40% to 35%) 0.30 (40% to 35%)
Shear modulus (MPa) G12 4114 (40% to 35%) 4892 (40% to 35%)
G13 4114 (40% to 35%) 4892 (40% to 35%)
G23 2240 (40% to 35%) 1349 (40% to 35%)
Tensile strength (MPa) T1 400 (40% to 35%) 350 (40% to 35%)
T2 (0.2–0.3)T1 (0.2–0.3)T1
Compressive strength (MPa) C1 400 (40% to 35%) 350 (40% to 35%)
C2 (0.2–0.3)C1 (0.2–0.3)C1
Shear strength (MPa) S12 80 (40% to 35%) 110 (40% to 35%)

Start Start

Initial Values for Design Variables For i = 1 to MNG (Maximum No. of Generation)

3-D Structural Analysis Generate i-th Generation and Population

For j = 1 to TSC (Total Size of Chromosome)

Optimization for Structure

j-th Chromosome -> Index

3-D Structural Analysis
Index -> Design Variables

Optimization for Materials

Evaluate Fittness Function

Converged?
No Is j = TSC?
No
Yes Yes
Crossover
End Select Superior Chromosome
and Mutation

Fig. 2. Flowchart for optimization procedure.

Is i = MNG?
No
Yes
4. Material property optimization End

CLT is applied to perform optimization of material Fig. 3. Modified GA-based solution algorithm.
composition and to property of material as the second
optimum design. The optimum design algorithm for
generation stress (ryield/req). In the case of isotropic
the material composition is shown in Fig. 4. The laminar
materials, if req equals to Eq. (2), the material is consid-
properties such as longitudinal/horizontal elastic modu-
ered safe when R > 1.
lus and shear modulus are calculated using the CLT, ap- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
plied fiber, ply angle, number of ply, ply thickness, and req ¼ r2x  rx ry þ r2y ð2Þ
fiber volume ratio. Afterwards, stress and strain are cal-
culated by taking into account the axial force, moment,
and load–displacement relations. Also, the elastic mod-
ulus and the ratio of strength to perform optimization of 5. Design example
material properties are checked to determine the optim-
ized material properties. The R, ratio of strength, is de- The form of the target bridge is a design example
fined as the ratio of yield stress to equal-value shown in the Design Manuals for Highway Bridges
 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 51

Start

Fiber & Matrix Properties

m,θ ,h,n,N,M

Calculation Laminar Properties

Transformed Stiffness Matrix Laminar Stiffness Matrix

Laminate Stiffness Matrix

Force-Displ. Relation Yes No

Off-axis Strain N = ∫ σ dz Modulus Check
M= ∫σ .zdz

Strength Ratio(R) No
On-axis Strain On-axis Stress
Check

Yes

End

Fig. 4. Optimum design algorithm of material composition.

1070 2500 2500 2500 2500 1070

480
Upper Thickness : 32

Web Thickness : 12 2000

Lower Thickness : 36
650

( unit : mm)

Fig. 5. Front view of an example bridge.

[14]. It has been assumed that the existing concrete deck When the optimum design of the target bridge is per-
of an example bridge is replaced to FRP deck. The spec- formed using the developed optimum design algorithm
ifications of the target bridge are shown in Fig. 5 and of FRP deck, a pseudo discrete technique is applied,
Table 4. since the design variables should be transformed to
52 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

Table 4 205.8 GPa, and PoissonÕs ratio to be 0.3. The FRP was
Example bridge specification produced as a cross-section to satisfy required strength
Description Value by determining material characteristics that belonged
Length 40,000 mm to a wide region. The reason is that, in the case of actual
Width 12,140 mm production, there is a large discrepancy in material
Girder spacing 2,500 mm properties of the FRP applied to cross-section design
No. of girder 5
Pier spacing 35,000 mm
as shown in Table 3. It was concluded, after reviewing
Boundary condition Simply support the design procedure of the FRP deck that had been car-
ried out overseas, that the serviceability mattered in the
design of FRP decks. Therefore, serviceability was re-
viewed at the position where the flexure moment reached
its maximum caused by concentrated loads and wheel
Loading Position loads as in Figs. 6 and 7. The effect of selfweight was in-
900 200 cluded when stress and material failure were computed,
and as for the condition of the live load, the standard
design truck load DB-24, as specified in the specification
[9], were applied.

1070 2500 2500 2500 2500 1070 6. Results of optimization

To date, there are no design standards for the FRP

4,200 4,200
23,520N 94,080N 94,080N
600
Center Line
Fig. 6. Live loading condition.
producible values. Therefore, it has been assumed that
optimum solution would be discrete as we change the
thickness of flanges by 1 mm, the thickness of web by
1 mm, the interval between height and web by 10 mm,
and the slope of web by 3.
Girders are assumed to be comprised steel, SM490
(allowable stress = 190 MPa), the elastic modulus to be
bridge deck, and hence the optimization of cross-section
shape were performed by taking into account whether
the upper/lower flanges are of the same thickness or
not, height of FRP deck is fixed at 20 cm or not, and
slope angle of web is restricted or not. The optimization
result of cross-section shape is shown in Fig. 8. Design
(unit : mm) limits and computed results according to constraints
are shown in Table 5. Optimization of physical
properties and pattern design which are derived from
optimization algorithm are shown in Table 6 and
Fig. 9.
7. Pilot test
The test sample has been produced using various
results from the design optimization and pultrusion

120 × 290 230 × 580

1,800
P=23,520N P=94,080N

4,200 4,200
(unit : mm)

Fig. 7. DB-24 truck load and tire contact area.

 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 53

t1=15

t3=11
H=200
t3=11
t2=15

B=160 B=160

(unit : mm)

Fig. 8. Optimized FRP deck section.

examine the kind of adhesiveÕs influence on flexure

Table 5
Results of structural analysis
Description Design
limits
Stress in fiber direction, f11 (MPa) 392.4
Stress in transverse direction, f22 (MPa) 392.4
In plane shear stress, f12 (MPa) 83.4
Tsai-Hill failure criteria (Tsai-Wu) <1.0
Buckling strength of web in shear (kN/m) 1862.1
Buckling strength of web in flexure (MPa) 1344.0
Buckling strength of flange in flexure (MPa) 71.17
Max global deflection (L/800, mm) 50
Max local deflection (L/800, mm) 3.13
method, and the performance of GFRP deck has been
verified. Four such tests have been carried out: fiber
direction flexure test, transverse direction flexure test,
web buckling performance verification test, and proto-
type behavior test. The performance results will be dis-
cussed in the following section.
7.1. Fiber direction test
Flexure tests were performed using two adhesives for
FRP, which impressed KICT [15], to verify basic flexure
performance on the developed FRP module and to
behavior characteristics of FRP module: One is from S
Company (or called adhesive S), the other is from M
Computed Company (or called adhesive M).
value Three test samples for the adhesive S and adhesive M
67.2 respectively were used for the experiment. The outline of
79.3 the test samples and the procedures for the experiment
15.1
are shown in Fig. 10. Loads were weighed as displace-
0.190
972.9 ment control, and the loads were measured until the
53.2 FRP module completely failed.
35.5 The load–deflection curve is shown in Fig. 11. As the
21.0 figure implies, in the case of adhesive S, the relation be-
3.00
tween load and displacement move linearly until nearly
250 kN. After 250 kN, however, the strength decreases
slightly probably due to partial bond failure, and as
the load increases again, the FRP module fails com-
pletely as the weighted load passes 350 kN. Various fail-
ure modes have been observed such as web buckling
failure, compressive failure of upper flange, bond failure
of upper flange, and failure of joint between flange and
web. In addition, more than two different failure modes
simultaneously took place.
The mean values of the measured results are com-
pared with the computed results in Table 7. As the table
illustrates, failure load derived from the analysis was less
than that of the weighted load tested at the time the
strength decreased due to partial bond failure, and was

Table 6
Optimum material property
Description Flange Web
Optimum Min requirement Optimum Min requirement
Elastic modulus (MPa) E11 25,491 22,588 23,610 18,337
E22 23,663 15,998 15,785 10,983
PoissonÕs ratio m12 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Shear modulus (MPa) G12, G13 7131 3703 9865 4403
G23 4258 2182 6584 1282
Fiber volume ratio (%) Vf 65.0 (Fix) – 65.0 (Fix) –
Ratio of strength (R 6 1.0) R 0.808 – 0.8 –
54 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

Flange: 15mm Web: 11mm

CSM 1.500
0 ° 2.875 CSM 0.500
WM 2.125
CSM 1.500 0° 1.500
90 ° 0.875 CSM 0.500
CSM 1.500 WM 1.680
90 ° 0.875 CSM 0.500
CSM 1.500 0° 1.500
WM
0 ° 2.875 2.125
0.500
CSM
CSM 1.000
(unit : mm)

Fig. 9. Optimum pattern design of FRP deck.

Fig. 10. Loading condition of FRP module (fiber direction flexure test).

400
Adhesive S
350

300
Adhesive M
Load(kN)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection(mm)

Fig. 11. Load–deflection curve (fiber direction flexure test).

Table 7 at about 60% of the final failure load. It was observed

Test results of fiber direction flexure test that the physical characteristic of the FRP material used
Description Max deflection (mm) Failure load (kN) in this test exceeded the design material properties, and
Computed value 18.68 229.1 the material was structurally safe regardless of the adhe-
Measured value sives. The flexure test on fiber direction of the FRP
Adhesive S 30.84 373.1 module and the failure shape of the test samples are
Adhesive M 28.75 356.3 illustrated in Fig. 12.
 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 55

Fig. 12. Fiber direction flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.

7.2. Transverse direction test
Flexure tests were performed on the sample as shown
in Fig. 13 to examine the stiffness of transverse direction.
In this test, we tried to validate the rigidity of weak
direction of the FRP deck quantitatively, and performed
flexure test on five samples with the adhesive S applied
and three samples with the adhesive M applied under
the same conditions as that of the fiber direction flexure
test. Fig. 14 shows the load–deflection curve, and Table
8 presents the mean value of measured result compared
with the computed result. As a result, only a minor

500

LVDT
350

L/2 L/2

L=2,000

(unit : mm)

Fig. 13. Loading condition of FRP module (transverse direction flexure test).

10
Adhesive S
9
8
7

6
Load(kN)

Adhesive M
5
4

3
2

1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection(mm)

Fig. 14. Load–deflection curve (transverse direction flexure test).

56 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

Table 8 moved nonlinearly. In most cases, the shear failure be-

Test results of transverse direction flexure test tween the web and flange resulted in the final failure,
Description Max deflection (mm) Failure load (kN) however, there had been cases where the final failure
Computed value 37.37 17.1 was due to the bond failure between modules as shown
Measured value in Fig. 15.
Adhesive S 55.60 8.5 Compared to the computed result, rigidity was less
Adhesive M 53.81 7.6
than 50% of the analysis result. According to the analysis,
the rigidity of joint between web and flange was consid-
discrepancy between flexure behaviors for each adhesive ered equal to that of other parts. But, it is believed that
could be identified. However, contrary to the fiber direc- the rigidity of joint between web and flange was less than
tion flexure test, relations between load and deflection the designed, probably due to manufacture technique or

Fig. 15. Transverse direction flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.

Fig. 16. Loading condition of FRP module (web buckling test): (a) type I, (b) type II, (c) type III, (d) type IV.

800

700 1cell, Uniform Load(Type III)

600
2cell, Uniform Load(Type I)
Load(kN)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Deflection(mm)

Fig. 17. Examples of web buckling test result.

 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 57

Table 9
Test results of web buckling test
Description Buckling load (kN)
2 Cell uniform loading 2 Cell point loading 1 Cell uniform loading H type
Computed value 675 384 335 216
Measured value 623 303 413 192

bonding problems. A further study concerning this prob-
lem may be required to clarify the rigidity of joint.
7.3. Web buckling test
The web buckling test aims to verify basic buckling
performance of the web component. The outline of the
test sample and the procedures for load weighting are
shown in Fig. 16. The cross-section shape and the load
weighting width are set as variables, and the buckling
load in each case are calculated. Except for Type IV,
two modules were attached, and each test sample was
30 cm long. Fig. 17 shows the buckling test result, and
Table 9 presents the mean value of the measured result
compared with the computed value. In most cases, buck-
ling failure of the web and bearing failure around the
boundary of the web and flange was evident. There were
discrepancies between the measured and the computed
results according to shapes of test sample. It is believed
that the discrepancies between the boundary conditions,
which was applied to numerical analysis, and test condi-
tions to be the main cause of the differences. In the case

Fig. 18. Failure shape of web buckling test.

2,200( 13cells)

230

580

Side View
Front View

2,200
2,700 (unit : mm)

Fig. 19. Prototype of FRP deck flexure test.

58 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59

350

300

250

Load(kN)
200

150

100

50

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Deflection(mm)

Fig. 20. Results of FRP deck flexure test.

Fig. 21. FRP deck flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.

of two-cell uniform load weighting closest to the case of
axial load of bridge deck, it was realized that the buck-
ling safety factor was more than five, the mean value of
measured results was 623 kN, and the minimum value of
measured result was 515 kN. The test and failure shape
is displayed in Fig. 18.
weighting plate, and the failure load was 327 kN, close
to the computed value of 317 kN. The failure load was
three times larger than the axial design load of 94 kN
as specified in the specification [9]. The test and failure
shape is shown in Fig. 21.

7.4. FRP deck test 8. Conclusion

Static weighting test were performed on the sample
shown in Fig. 19 to study the characteristics of the
FRP deck similar to the actual FRP deck consisting of
the proposed cross-section. Displacement control was
used as load weighting method to give failure. As for
the load weighting area, we imitated a truck wheel and
allowed the load of uniform load to exert on a weighing
plate of 230 mm · 580 mm (i.e., transverse direc-
tion · fiber direction). The position of the load weight-
ing was spanned over two webs as shown in Fig. 19.
The results from the FRP deck test are shown in Fig.
20. It was observed that the failure had occurred at the
adhesive side between upper flanges near the load
In this paper, optimum cross-section shape of the
GFRP deck, optimum physical properties, and the pat-
tern design using optimum design algorithm have been
proposed. Based on the optimization, several verifica-
tion tests have been conducted, and the following con-
clusions can be drawn from the study:
(1) The proposed algorithm is capable of optimizing,
simultaneously, the structure and material for the
GFRP deck system. The overall optimization pro-
cedure requires a full three-dimensional numerical
analysis, and hence this leads to inefficient practical
application, especially for multi-cellular sections.
 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59
Therefore, a structural analysis module should be
implemented into the computer code to improve
its efficiency for an easy analysis.
(2) A series of tests such as fiber direction flexure test,
transverse direction test, buckling test, and load
weighting test of FRP decks in actual scale have
been conducted to examine basic performances of
the developed FRP module for decks. In the case
of fiber direction flexure test, it was found that
the measured failure loads were 1.3–1.4 times larger
than the computed value obtained from the numeri-
cal analysis. Also it was observed that the factor of
safety against buckling was more than five. In addi-
tion, the failure load of FRP decks was three times
larger than the axial load of design truck load DB-
24, as specified in the specification [9].
(3) Based on the test result, it was realized that it is safe
to design using modeling technique applied to this
analysis because the measured result was generally
larger than the computed value, and the soundness
of the proposed optimum design algorithm has
been successfully validated. It was observed, how-
ever, that most failures took place at the joint
between flange and web. Therefore, further studies
concerning this problem may be required. In the
future, the dynamic test and fatigue test may be use-
ful as well as the static test to examine the durability
of the developed GFRP deck.
References
[1] Cohn MZ, Dinovitzer AS. Application of structural optimization.
J Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120(2):617–50.
59
[2] Burnside P, Babero EJ, Davalos JF, Ganga Rao H. Design
optimization of and all-FRP bridge. In: Proceedings of the 38th
International SAMPE Symposium, 1993.
[3] Qiao P. Analysis and design optimization of fiber-reinforced
plastics (FRP) structural beam. PhD dissertation, West Virginia
University, 1997.
[4] Mantell S, Heiness B. Optimized design of pultruded composite
beam. J Reinforced Plastics Compos 1996;15:758–78.
[5] Salem MA. Optimum design of precast bridge systems prestressed
with carbon fiber reinforcement polymers. MS thesis, Concordia
University, 2000.
[6] Choi YM, Kim HY, Hwang YK, Cho HN. Optimum design of a
pultruded FRP bridge deck. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advanced Materials for Construction of Bridges,
Buildings and other Structures-III, Davos, Switzerland, 7–12
September 2003. p. 7–12.
[7] Clarke JLE, Spon FN. Structural design of polymer composites-
EUROCOMP design code and handbook. European Structural
Polymeric Composites Group (EUROCOM), 1996.
[8] Babero Ever J. Introduction to composite material design. Taylor
& Francis; 1999.
[9] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). Standards
specifications for highway bridges, 2nd ed., Korea, 2000 [in
Korean].
[10] American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st ed.,
Washington, DC, 1998.
[11] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FRP decks and
super-structures: current practice. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
bridge/frp/deckprac.htm>, updated December 9, 2002.
[12] Vanderplaats GN. Numerical optimization techniques for engi-
neering design with applications. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1984.
[13] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. ABAQUS/standard userÕs
manual, ver. 6.3. 2002.
[14] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). Design
manuals for highway bridges: typical drawings, No. 42000-58710-
67-9926, Korea, 2000.
[15] Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT). Develop-
ment of GFRP bridge decks-year two, Report No. KICT 2003-
050, Goyang, Korea, 2003 [in Korean].